Gun Control’s Racist Origins

Generally there is no need to respond to absurdities. Ignore them and they wither away. The temptation is to dismiss Jason Whitlock’s comment that the NRA is the new KKK as just such a thing. If you have not been following this, Whitlock’s wisdom on firearms policy was invoked by Bob Costas and that has given him a platform to share more of his deeply flawed insights.

The worry is that it takes a certain amount of cultural literacy to recognize an absurdity, especially when it is given a veneer of legitimacy in print and on the airwaves. This is a particular concern on issues of firearms policy where, as I demonstrated in my last post, many people hold wildly inaccurate views of the basic facts.

Presumably the suggested equivalency between the NRA and the KKK is a commentary on the view that the Second Amendment protects a substantive individual right to arms and that owning firearms is a rational choice and legitimate exercise of personal autonomy within our political system. The implication is that this choice should be no more appealing to Blacks than membership in the Klan. (Actually it’s even worse, as Whitlock seems to suggest the NRA, or some unnamed co-conspirator, is also responsible for the illegal drug trade)

Perhaps Whitlock truly believes what he says and is unreachable. But for his enablers, who should know better, here are some basic data.

Even the roughest cut at the question shows that substantial swath of the Black community would reject Whitlock’s thesis. National polling by the Pew Research Center recently asked, “What do you think is more important – to protect the right of Americans to own guns, or to control gun ownership?” Fifty-four percent of whites and 30 percent of Blacks said it was more important to protect gun rights. Respondents were also asked “Should States and Localities be able to pass laws banning handguns?” 64 percent of Blacks said yes and 30 percent said no. Based on these results, Whitlock must conclude that a third of the Black community are Klan sympathizers. And that actually is the least absurd implication of his “analysis.”

Pressing further into the details the tables actually turn dramatically against the Whitlock hypothesis. More finely grained studies caution skepticism about findings (like the Pew survey) based on national data, because the size of the Black sample is usually very small. It turns out that when asked a series of more specific questions, in targeted surveys, Blacks evince support for self-defense and gun rights, that rivals and sometimes exceeds that of whites.

Early work by Paula McClain examined perceptions of risk, patterns of gun ownership and attitudes toward gun regulation between Blacks and whites at the neighborhood rather than the national level. Notably this work was conducted during a period where overall support for banning handguns was much higher than it is today. McClain surveyed Blacks and whites in distinct neighborhoods categorized by race and risk factors. She found the rate of reported gun ownership between whites and Blacks relatively the same. More Black Klan members I suppose Whitlock would say.

With regard to differential Black and white attitudes about gun regulation, McClain found that the number of questions and specificity of the questions made important differences. The responses to those questions suggest that Whitlock’s may be a quite marginal viewpoint. Here are some examples:

The policy option with the least support among the groups was the confiscation of all weapons except for those of the police. The support for confiscation ranged from high of 26% among blacks in a high risk area to a low of 10.16 among blacks in a low risk area.” …

Support for having the government sell firearms through a government owned stores, much like liquor is sold in states like Pennsylvania’s, also varied substantially. Blacks in high risk neighborhoods are again the least supportive – 19.4%

The indication that the supportive responses vary depending on the policy option is a significant finding. It is significant because previous studies, which have primarily asked about support for laws requiring permitting, have consistently found that a majority of people support gun control. … The variability in the responses to the other questions however, clearly calls into question the reliability of a one-item indicator as a measure of gun control attitudes.

Other detailed studies show that a significant cohort of Blacks favor prohibition or other strong limits on the criminal micro-culture but disfavor blanket prohibition that would impede self-defense by trustworthy people. A study by Brennan and Lizotte, found that Blacks actually disfavored gun bans at higher levels than whites, even though they favored measures like permits and registration at levels higher than whites.

Whitlock’s commentary is also problematic at another level that I elaborate in detail in my forthcoming article, Firearms Law and The Black Community:An Assessment Of The Modern Orthodoxy (Connecticut Law Review) and a forthcoming book based on that research, “Negros with Guns: The Dual Tradition of Non-Violent Social Change and Individual Self-Defense (Prometheus). This work explains that the basic premise of the modern gun control movement – that people should rely on government for personal security- is wildly at odds with the Black experience in America. No group in the nation has better reason to doubt the competency and benevolence of the state. For most of the Black experience in America, the state has been an overt menace.

So it is no surprise that for most of our history, the Black community from the leadership to the grassroots has explicitly and aggressively endorsed the right of armed self-defense and firearms ownership. Kentucky firebrand Ida B. Wells urged that “the Winchester rifle deserved a place of honor in every Negro home.” The first generation of legal battles by the NAACP were centered on defending Blacks who had used firearms in self-defense – e.g., hiring Clarence Darrow to defend Dr. Ossian Sweet who was mobbed for attempting move into a white neighborhood.

In every generation armed Black folk have used guns in self-defense both prosaically and heroically. And since at least the middle of the 19th century Blacks have embraced a dual policy of nonviolent social change concurrent with a clear endorsement of individual self-defense. This approach is vividly illustrated in Martin Luther King’s commentary during one of the high profile debates about the implications of the approach. After affirming the strategy of nonviolence in pursuit of group goals King says this:

Violence exercised merely in self-defense, all societies, from the most primitive to the most cultured and civilized, accept as moral and legal. The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi … . When the Negro uses force in self-defense, he does not forfeit support he may even win it, by the courage and self-respect it reflects.

King plainly condemned political violence. At the same time he and most everyone else recognized, that armed self-defense was a crucial private resource for Blacks(as it is for anyone who faces imminent violent threats).

This dichotomy is reflected continuously in the practice and policy of the leadership and the grassroots since the era of Frederick Douglass (who recommended “a good revolver as the best response to the slave catcher”). This view prevailed unobscured into the 1970’s, when the political class, rising on the wave of a coalition that included the newly emerging national gun control movement, embraced supply side gun control theory as the answer to the crime problem plaguing their new domains. But as we see from the polling, even though Blacks vote reliably democratic, and the Democrat platform advances supply side gun control, many Black folk at the grass roots (and some public officials) depart from the political orthodoxy and carry forward the strong black tradition of arms, rooted in a robust and justified skepticism about the ability of the state to protect them from imminent violent threats.

It is no accident that the two seminal Second Amendment cases of our age were led by Black plaintiffs. The concerns of people like Shelly Parker and Otis McDonald, have long driven the robust Black tradition of arms. The benefit of arms in the hands of good people like this, for example reductions in hot burglaries and a general disincentive to criminals, are arguably more important in Black neighborhoods than elsewhere. Moreover the fundamental justification for self-defense – the structural limits on the state’s ability to interdict imminent threats – is more pervasive in Black communities than in other places. Police response is slower. Personal threats are more common. Public resources are spread more thinly.

The only possible foundation for comments like Whitlock’s is the erroneous assumption that personal firearms render no benefits. That is demonstrably false as summarized in my previous post and illustrated extensively in my other work. And there is no indication that the benefits of firearms ownership and use discriminate on the basis of race.

Finally, one wonders whether Whitlock even appreciates that the history of supply-side gun control in America is rooted in racism. As described in detail in my book Firearms law and the Second Amendment, the first generation of supply-side gun controls were explicitly racist. Ironically, these laws worked hand-in-hand with oppressive state regimes and terrorist organizations like the KKK. On this score Whitlock’s invocation of the KKK is ironic and perverse.

By invoking the specter of racism, Whitlock appropriates and exploits a public good that has been paid for in the sweat and blood of countless Black folk both here and gone. His cavalier deployment of this resource degrades those people and their sacrifice. Whitlock makes hay by presuming to speak for Black people as a group. Through the grossest invective he smears those who would disagree with him. I have to believe that he does not realize that this includes millions of lawful Black gun owners who reject the demonstrably flawed approach of relying on the state for their personal security.

Whitlock seems pervasively ignorant of the basic moving parts of the gun issue and yet his “analysis” has been elevated in our conversation as if it constitutes a serious policy critique. It is an indictment of our culture and bodes ill for the Republic, that this is the nature of our public debates.

Nicholas J. Johnson is Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law is the author of Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms. He is the lead editor of Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Cases and Materials (Aspen Press, 2012).

Comments

Great article. The NRA is doing everything it can to reach into the inner cities and introduce people there to shooting. I am an NRA Instructor and have set up a shooting range 2 hours from NYC and Philadelphia specifically for the purpose of teaching inner city people about their Second Amendment rights.http://www.poconoshooting.com

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm people in order to prevent future tyranny. They need the tools to do this.

The term “Well Regulated” in the Second Amendment meant “Well Manned and Equipped ” in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time.

United States v. Miller also determined that the term “Arms” refers to “Ordinary Military Weapons”. American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. A Militia consisted of armed volunteers willing to fight with their personal arms and not under government control.

The American people still have a lot of work to do with regard to taking back their rights.

The Second Amendment as an individual right was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in its decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1856. With the rights of slaves in question, the nation’s highest court opined on the intent of the Second Amendment for the first time, writing that affording slaves full rights of American citizenship would include the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

This is part and parcel of the larger push by those who are empowered when the state is given more resources and authority to discourage and dissuade individuals from taking responsibility for their own lives and instead to become perpetual wards of the state.

Depending on the government for personal security is no different from depending on that government for food or shelter. Government protection is the same as government cheese.

Last, but certainly not least, it should never be forgotten that political power comes from the barrel of a gun. America is (still) a free county because We The People act as the final check and balance against tyranny. Those who wish to deprive us of the power to act as that safeguard do so with the full understanding of this fact.

While the canard about the NRA and the KKK being somehow related has been around for some time, it got an enormous boost from Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine,” which, in an animated sequence, elides the founding of the KKK and the NRA.

Having a master propagandist link the two is one way to ensure that, for non-experts, the two are now inextricably associated with each other, whatever the historical reality.

Please, people, get it through your thick skulls and into your pea brains!!!

People like Whitlock do not make statements in order to inform, or explicate; they spew lies and filth out of their mouths in order to DISINFORM, and IMPLICATE!!!
Notice that the NRA=KKK is an ACCUSATION!!! It is the fallacy of smear by association. IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT THE NRA WAS FOUNDED BY UNION OFFICERS!!! People are so stupid and ignorant nowadays that they eat up lies like that with a giant spoon. it is just too complicated for the morally depraved to keep straight who was on what side when. The whole DemonicRat party is one giant case of political revisionism. The DemonicRats were and are still the party of slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, lynching, etc. Black people aren’t the only fools to swallow the lies, but sadly they pay the biggest price for it.

The only thing the NRA and the KKK have in common is that they are both three-letter acronyms. The ATF has more in common behaviorally and mission-wise with the KKK than the NRA does, which is perhaps why the prefer to extend their acronym to BATFE.

[…] December 10, 2012 – 7:04 am Tweet Here’s a piece by Fordham Professor Nicholas J. Johnson that Jason Whitlock and Bob Costas sho…. But being incurious liberals, they won’t. It is no accident that the two seminal Second […]

[…] A post from Professor Nicholas Johnson: Even the roughest cut at the question shows that substantial swath of the Black community would reject Whitlock’s thesis. National polling by the Pew Research Center recently asked, “What do you think is more important – to protect the right of Americans to own guns, or to control gun ownership?” Fifty-four percent of whites and 30 percent of Blacks said it was more important to protect gun rights. Respondents were also asked “Should States and Localities be able to pass laws banning handguns?” 64 percent of Blacks said yes and 30 percent said no. Based on these results, Whitlock must conclude that a third of the Black community are Klan sympathizers. And that actually is the least absurd implication of his “analysis.” […]

[…] Looking at gun control intellectually, from a legal standpoint, not emotionally or from some skewed personal perspective, Nicholas Johnson wrote in his Library of Law and Liberty article, Gun Control’s Racist Origins, […]

[…] Chicago ended with the incorporation of the Second Amendment onto the states – gets it; gun control is racist, and in its Chicago form exists mainly to make criminals out of the law-abiding while leaving […]

[…] the born-to-lie media is that the KKK was founded, not just as a terrorist organization, but as a gun control organization (see here, too), successfully lobbying for this nation’s first gun control laws: those […]

[…] On Martin Luther King day, remember that the Second Amendment, was one of those rights denied to black citizens. Dr. King was denied a permit to carry, in 1956 after his home was bombed, and he received death threats. Gun control has racist origins. […]

by Glenn A. MootsYou wouldn’t know it from Tripadvisor, but the small coastal town of Newburyport, Massachusetts holds a unique attraction drawing thousands of visitors—in the last two years they’ve hailed from 41…

Recent Posts

Why Homer Matters is the best book about literature I have read in decades. Significantly, its author, Adam Nicolson, is not a tenured professor at some famous university or even an independent classical scholar. And this difference shows, all to the benefit of the reader. An accomplished sailor, Nicolson has endured gales and felt theRead Moreby John O. McGinnis

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 52:17 — 47.9MB) Peter Schuck comes to Liberty Law Talk to discuss Why Government Fails So Often. Like James Buckley and John DiIulio, Schuck doesn’t have much good news for the large majority of Americans who are disgusted with the performance of the federal government and itsRead Moreby Peter H. Schuck

In Citizens Divided: Campaign Finance Reform and the Constitution, Robert C. Post, the dean of Yale Law School, makes it his task to “elaborate a constitutional framework in which First Amendment doctrine and campaign finance reform can be connected to each other in a coherent and theoretically satisfactory manner.” Despite its title, Citizens Divided isRead Moreby Bradley A. Smith

In My Fair Lady (based on George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion), Professor Higgins asks why can’t a woman be more like a man? But these days, the sentiments underlying that question are more likely to be reversed. In this article, a 50 year old woman laments the behavior of men. There seems to be a genderRead Moreby Mike Rappaport

I am a faithful subscriber to the Washington Post: morning after morning, it makes for merriment. Its editorial and op-ed pages, for instance, have been given over for weeks to the regurgitation of ACA defenses cranked up in New Haven or in the PR offices of the country’s health care lobbies (interspersed with an occasionalRead Moreby Michael S. Greve

Archives

About

The Online Library of Law and Liberty’s focus is on the content, status, and development of law in the context of republican and limited government and the ways that liberty and law and law and liberty mutually reinforce the other. This site brings together serious debate, commentary, essays, book reviews, interviews, and educational material in a commitment to the first principles of law in a free society. Law and Liberty considers a range of foundational and contemporary legal issues, legal philosophy, and pedagogy.